Poll: 30 outer against an overbet?

[GDRileyx]

If you're going to count 15 helping cards against two chances, you get 30. If you count all the cards unknown in those two draws, you get 52 - 2 in you hand - 3 on the flop = 47, plus one less on the river for 46 = 93. Then, assuming you are going to get to see both draws, you have 30/93, not 60/93. You can't double the helping cards twice..

I doubled both the helping cards and the unknown cards. It's actually 30/46.5. Technically it's 15/47 + 15/46.

If it was, as you say, 30/93, you'd be a huge dog on this hand, and have to fold. But even my worst critic admits that this hand is 54% to win. Not the 32% that you calculate.

 

[c9h13no3]

Did you guys know that 2+2 = 5 for very large values of 2?

 

[Dwilius]

Well your expected outs are 54% to hit, but they may not all be clean if its a higher draw. No doubt its a huge flop for your hand and as C9 said you'll only be making a mistake by folding since its doubtful you have fold equity.

 

[GDRileyx]

Um, vs. a random hand pairing your 6 or 7 will often be an out also, we weren't counting those. Generally you don't get too much action from random hands postflop. Thanks for switching the basis of the problem and obliging with the nonsense post sir, may I have another?

It doesn't matter that much. If you plug in any kind of tight opening range for the opponant to be on, it still comes out that this hand is more than a 55% favorite, and possibly as high as 72%. So my number is still more accurate than yours.

 

[Dwilius]

What hand would you possibly be 72% against? You don't give the minraise preflop, overbet flop credit for atleast a big pair or a flushdraw?

You're a couple % better than 54 against a larger pair than your cards and a couple % less than 54 if those pairs contain a heart. Those are the most likely villain hands imo.

Worst case scenario, you're an almost 2 to 1 dog against a higher flush draw, and behind a set, less likely with the big overbet I think.

You've gone from acknowledging the 4h may not be an out in case of sets to adding complete air to his range (which adds outs btw) just so your number "is still more accurate". Well played.

 

[-Phil Ivey27]

This is where Stu is "flat wrong". He's figuring the odds as being one draw to make my hand, instead of two draws. He's saying it would be 15 outs times two, if it was an all-in bet. He's saying I only get one draw for that bet, and denying that I can multiply by two, the way he counts outs. But I can make it two draws for the one bet by pushing all-in. Therfore, I am entitled to use the times two multiplyer, which I count as 30 outs, and he counts as 15 outs times two.

As for whether I am "a productive member", there is a little trick. Click on the link for my name, and choose "View all posts by....". Then you'll be in a position to judge how "productive" I am.

As for my sig, that's my poker personality. Do you think Hellmuth cares if people respect him? Do you think Phil Laak cares? No, Hellmuth and Laak realize that the lower peoples' estimation of them is, the easier it is to take their money. I don't play poker to make friends, I play poker to make money. But, since CC helps me make money (about $100 now) I do my share to educate people and contribute to discussions. Otherwise, I'd never lift a finger to wise up the suckers. And believe me when I tell you, I firmly believe that the rigid-thinkers with whom I argue, and those who listen to them, are the biggest suckers of all.

There are a few things i'd like to say:

Stu is not "flat wrong," he is flat right. There are no different methods of counting outs, outs are counted based on mathmatics, not theory. You can be aggressive or passive, loose or tight, but you can't count your outs however you want, unless you want to continue to lose money.

Secondly, please don't ever compare yourself with Phil Hellmuth or Phil Laak.

Finally, I think your attitude towards people is terrible, your thoughts about poker are wrong, and everything I said here is not a matter of opinion, these are facts, just like how you're supposed to count outs.

 

[OzExorcist]

It doesn't matter that much. If you plug in any kind of tight opening range for the opponant to be on, it still comes out that this hand is more than a 55% favorite, and possibly as high as 72%. So my number is still more accurate than yours.

Two things:

- In your problem, villain open-minraised UTG. This suggests to me that your villain is a drooler, not someone with a "tight opening range"

- You've claimed to be as high as a 72% favourite, but in the same sentence you've given your opponent a tight opening range. Sorry, but the two don't go together.

 

[GDRileyx]

The figures I plugged into the odds calculator to get the 55-72% figure were ranges of opening hands, such as A with K-T, suited and off-suited, K with A-9, suited and off, and any pair. Or Sklansky's first five ranges.

Admittedly, if I had plugged in only the hands that likely beat me, like face/face of hearts, the numbers would have been lower, as low as 40%. But I didn't think that was valid, because if he'd play KQH, he'd have also played KQD.

Some might say that if he had KQD, he wouldn't have made the post-flop bet. But that's not really valid either, because he might have been bluffing.

As for the 4H being an out or not, it's only not an out if the opponant has trips, which is not that likely. So it's probably about .6 of an out. But the hand calculators can figure that in, which is why the odds against a random hand are a little lower than the ones I calculate by my method.

 

[GDRileyx]

Two things:
- In your problem, villain open-minraised UTG. This suggests to me that your villain is a drooler, not someone with a "tight opening range"

I'm so glad you posted this. You obviously have not read the whole thread, especially the post about how closed-minded one-way-to-play yahoos on this site will bash people for min-raises, despite the fact that two of Sklansky's advanced principles are about the effectiveness of min-raises.

So, while the opponant is someone you would consider a drooler, he might also be a solid Sklansky disciple.

 

[GDRileyx]

Secondly, please don't ever compare yourself with Phil Hellmuth or Phil Laak.

Finally, I think your attitude towards people is terrible, your thoughts about poker are wrong, and everything I said here is not a matter of opinion, these are facts, just like how you're supposed to count outs.

This, coming from someone who thinks he is Phil Ivey? We all model our styles and personnas after successful pros.

You obviously flunked the elementary-school unit on the difference between facts and opinions. But that's ok, it's your teacher's fault, not yours.

 

[OzExorcist]

I'm so glad you posted this. You obviously have not read the whole thread, especially the post about how closed-minded one-way-to-play yahoos on this site will bash people for min-raises, despite the fact that two of Sklansky's advanced principles are about the effectiveness of min-raises.

So, while the opponant is someone you would consider a drooler, he might also be a solid Sklansky disciple.

Oh no, I've read the whole thread. It was painful, but I read it.

Let's say for a moment you do have a valid argument though, and it's possible that someone who min-raises UTG is a very skilled player. Does that mean it's impossible that they're a drooling moron?

No, of course it doesn't. So the question is how often does someone that minraises UTG turn out to be a very solid player with a tight opening range, and how often do they in fact turn out to be drooling morons?

I put it to you that the figure is heavily weighted in favour of the latter. Maybe as much as 72% or more.

 

[GDRileyx]

I put it to you that the figure is heavily weighted in favour of the latter. Maybe as much as 72% or more.

Ok, this one is for Phil Ivey27.

Is Oz's statement a fact or an opinion?

Hint: the correct answer is in green.

 

[wsorbust]

LOL.

 

[OzExorcist]

Is Oz's statement a fact, an opinion, or taking the piss out of the OP?

Hint: the correct answer is in green.

FYP.

Though if that's what you're focussing on, you're completely missing the point.

 

[ph_il]

So...If you have 15 outs to call a bet to a see a turn and you miss you still have the same 15 outs to call a bet on the turn to see the river, right?

So, how are you getting 30 outs? In the situation provided, you're outs will stay the same for both streets to come (assuming you're drawing to the nut hand). Nothing doubles.

If you have $15 dollars today and you don't spend any, how much do you have the next day? By you're math, it's should be $30, right? But that is impossible because have the same $15 on day one and on day two still = $15. The same with the outs.

 

[GDRileyx]

I'd say this is a better analogy. You're playing Russian roulette with three bullets in a six shot revolver. You have to pull the trigger once or twice. You seem to be saying you might as well pull it twice, because the odds are the same as blowing your brains out either way.

 

[cAPSLOCK]

GDRileyx.

You do something pretty commonly as far as I have been able to tell.

You post something that may or may not be interesting, but you take an unconventional position in your post. Like the idea that a straight and flush draw is 30 outs.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/chart_pot_odds.html
http://www.propokerguide.com/poker-strategy/calculate-poker-outs.htm
http://www.texasholdem-poker.com/odds_chart
http://www.tightpoker.com/poker_odds.html
http://casinogambling.about.com/library/weekly/aa050103.htm
http://www.pokersyte.com/texas_holdem_poker_odds_6.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability_(Texas_hold_'em)

Then, you are challenged for that position.

Admittedly a poker forum is going to be an aggressive ego based place. But you've been here defending things like "30 outs" for a while now, so you get picked on a little extra strong.

But you deserve it, I am sorry to say.

You are obviously an intelligent and passionate person. But you are also a fool.

Stop dying on hills that are not worth it like:

"Outs are however I choose to count them."

It's a convention that exists so we can all talk about things and know what we all mean.

If you decided that you might as well spell "pickle" with 14 letter "k"s in it because "it's a matter of how I want to look at it" you cant be surprised when people snicker when you want to be taken seriously talking about "pickkkkkkkkkkkkkkles".

I would be willing to say that stepping down one notch from being so irrepressibly incorrigible on issues such as this one would not only improve your poker mindset, but it would raise your reputation and general ability to enjoy life.

But then... I am just a silly old doofus.

cAPS

 

[belladonna05]

I'd say this is a better analogy. You're playing Russian Roulette with three bullets in a six shot revolver. You have to pull the trigger once or twice. You seem to be saying you might as well pull it twice, because the odds are the same as blowing your brains out either way.

So are there only 3 empty chambers in the gun to help you or 6? Forgive me but by your algebraic logic 3x2 equals 6 empty chambers to help you?

 

[Bren]

So, about that book...

Here are a couple of reviews i found quickly about PPLAP
Sounds like it's a mix of good and bad advice.

http://cardsharp.org/review-play-poker-like-a-pigeon-and-take-the-money-home/

http://www.pokerplayernewspaper.com/viewarticle.php?id=2752

 

[KardKlub]

So are there only 3 empty chambers in the gun to help you or 6? Forgive me but by your algebraic logic 3x2 equals 6 empty chambers to help you?

thats the best one yet.... great post

how can you x2 your outs for two different draws. there is still only one of each card in the deck.

This is surely giving you false hope. 15 outs is 15 outs.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

GDRileyx.

You do something pretty commonly as far as I have been able to tell.

You post something that may or may not be interesting, but you take an unconventional position in your post. Like the idea that a straight and flush draw is 30 outs.

http://www.flopturnriver.com/chart_pot_odds.html
http://www.propokerguide.com/poker-strategy/calculate-poker-outs.htm
http://www.texasholdem-poker.com/odds_chart
http://www.tightpoker.com/poker_odds.html
http://casinogambling.about.com/library/weekly/aa050103.htm
http://www.pokersyte.com/texas_holdem_poker_odds_6.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poker_probability_(Texas_hold_'em)

Then, you are challenged for that position.

Admittedly a poker forum is going to be an aggressive ego based place. But you've been here defending things like "30 outs" for a while now, so you get picked on a little extra strong.

But you deserve it, I am sorry to say.

You are obviously an intelligent and passionate person. But you are also a fool.

Stop dying on hills that are not worth it like:

"Outs are however I choose to count them."

It's a convention that exists so we can all talk about things and know what we all mean.

If you decided that you might as well spell "pickle" with 14 letter "k"s in it because "it's a matter of how I want to look at it" you cant be surprised when people snicker when you want to be taken seriously talking about "pickkkkkkkkkkkkkkles".

I would be willing to say that stepping down one notch from being so irrepressibly incorrigible on issues such as this one would not only improve your poker mindset, but it would raise your reputation and general ability to enjoy life.

But then... I am just a silly old doofus.

cAPS

+1

I completely agree with this.

GDRileyx, whats happening in this post is typical of many posts you create.

For example, often when you post a hand in the HA section, you put a disclaimer saying that you don't want people to comment on how the hand was played just that they should study it and improve their game by it.

Often the hand is played badly but the end result is a win or a miracle flop and therefore you think that this is superior play. Often calls are made with inferior hands, but you put them on such an inconceivably restricted range that you feel they are ahead. For example you often remove all mid pairs and suited cards from an opponents range, leaving you with a range which is just impossibly narrow. It suits the purposes of your thread because to include a larger range puts you behind and therefore makes substitute actions a mistake.

You have stated in this thread that you do not actually want to be involved with group discussions which would help educate players. Partially this is arrogance (in this thread you compare yourself to Laak and Hellimunth, in others it has been Newton and Einstein); you feel that you know a lot more than you do. Part of this is a real contempt towards other members. I genuinely think that if this site helped make you into a better player, you would feel perfectly right in not helping to improve others.

You also seem to be the most closed minded individual I have seen on this forum. When people offer facts and figures to show that your thinking is wrong (and this will happen a lot if you decide to post ideas that are completely different to the adopted norm) you seem to completely disregard them. If your idea is correct then it should stand up to scrutiny. You should not have to keep changing what you say. Perhaps you don't realise this, but several people have pointed out how first you say one thing and then another.

I firmly agree with Caps, you are an intelligent person, that can be seen from the way which you write and that you are prepared to step from the beaten track. The foolishness is that you never accept that you can be wrong and that you disregard everything that others say... even when it is supported with evidence (facts, figures, numbers, calculations.)

This is very much painting a picture of an individual who is not posting to educate others or to ask others if your own ideas are correct. So why do you personally post? And why do you try so hard to be an outsider?

 

[ph_il]

(9 hearts + 3 threes + 3 eights) x 2 draws = 30 outs.

So, by you're math:

flush draw is: 9 hearts + 9 hearts = 18 heart outs/13 hearts in a deck
straight draw is: 3 threes + 3 threes + 3 eights + 3 eights = 6 three + 6 eight outs/4 threes and 6 eights in a deck.

Not possible is it? How can you have more draws than total cards in a deck?

 

[Deco]

I can see were your coming from.
Your thinking 15 outs times two as there is a turn and river card yet to come, therefore we have 30outs.

However this is not the convention for working it out.
We would say:

15outs with one card to come: 2:1 against
15outs with two cards to come: 0.8:1 in favour

This is what 99% of the poker world uses, I'm not sure if your method would be quite as accurate because as shown in the above example doubling the amount of cards to come does not quite double your chances.

 

[Crystal Blue]

If you dont see the card, then it does not effect the calculation. What if one of the cards you needed was on the bottom of the deck? - you would have no chance of it being dealt. It is exactly the same thing.

If you see the card, or someone tells you they have the card then yes you can include it, but otherwise it has no bearing on the odds given to you.

Wouldn't this only apply to a live game or an online poker room whose RNG doesn't continually shuffle the deck between streets? Which isn't too many from what I gather.

 

[Stu_Ungar]

It wouldn't apply at all. I was illlustrating why you do not consider cards which you have not seen.